Teacher makes instruction relevant to students…Teacher incorporates relevant life skills/happenings into content delivery. These skills may include personal responsibility, personal adaptability, ethics, productivity, self direction, and social responsibility.
Developing
Proficient
Accomplished
Distinguished
Not Demonstrate (comment, please)
Understands developmental levels of students and recognized the need to differentiate instruction
And, Demonstrates proven strategies for differentiation
And, Uses a variety of resources to adapt to the learning levels of students
And, Demonstrates that he/she is abreast latest research in instruction and informal assessment of students during instruction
Teacher integrates and utilizes technology in instruction…Teacher knows when and how to use technology to maximize student learning. Teachers help students use technology to learn content, think critically, solve problems, use information, determine credibility, communication, innovate, and collaborate.
Developing
Proficient
Accomplished
Distinguished
Not Demonstrate (comment, please)
Assesses effective type of technology to use
And, Demonstrates knowledge of how to use the technology in instruction
And, Integrates technology with instruction to maximize student learning
And, Provides evidence of student engagement in higher order thinking skills through the integration of technology.
Administrators Name: Comments to Teacher
Appendix C: Interview Questions 1) How is technology use among teachers, as a whole, in the classroom for instructional purposes? 2) What are you using to gauge the use among teachers? 3) How comfortable are you with technology? 4) Does the district offer regular training, and what type of training is offered, if any? 5) How many high school teachers attend? 6) Do the administrators attend mandatory job related technology training? 7) What are your thoughts on technology and student performance? 8) Why do you think technology use is so disproportionate among the high school teachers? 9) Are there any plans in the future to include technology training as a mandatory component of professional development? Appendix D: Interview Transcripts or Summary Person Interviewed: Kathy Burnham-Howington, Assistance Principal 1. Roxanne: How is technology use among teachers, as a whole, in the classroom for instructional purposes? Kathy: Technology use here is not all that good among teachers. We have a great deal of veteran teachers that still list overhead projector as a technology resource on their lesson plans. I would say that maybe about 38% to 39 % are using technology, and of that number maybe about 30% are really aligning technology appropriately. 2. Roxanne: What are you using to gauge the use among teachers? Kathy: Classroom observations and lesson plans 3. Roxanne: How comfortable are you with technology? Kathy: I use technology often and am pretty good at Word and PowerSchool. However I do not play around with it much. That’s about it. 4. Roxanne: Does the district offer regular training, and what type of training is offered, if any? Kathy: The district does offer some training. I am not sure at the moment what all is offered, but some is being offered. 5. Roxanne: How many high school teachers attend? Kathy: Not many of our teachers attend. The Elementary teachers are good at attending and the Middle school teachers also. 6. Roxanne: Do the administrators attend mandatory job related technology training? Kathy: No, we are not required to attend “tech” training for use purposes, but we did have to go to training for this new Power School system that went live district wide this school year. 7. Roxanne: What are your thoughts on technology and student performance? Kathy: I do believe that technology peaks the level of engagement for our students. For the teachers that do use some technology resource on a daily basis, they say that the students need it. They do so much better on assessments when the lesson has been facilitated using technology that is rich in visual and hand on activities. 8. Roxanne: Why do you think technology use is so disproportionate among the high school teachers? Kathy: A lot of our teachers are National Board Certified and have advance degrees. Their students perform well on state and national assessments. Some feel that technology will not improve student performance and they say that they are fine with the use. They do not realize that they are still under the traditional way and they are not keeping up with trends in educational research or technology. We are going to have to push them into the era of educational technology. 9. Roxanne: Are there any plans in the future to include technology training as a mandatory component of professional development? Kathy: Our superintendent, Dr Stasny, has been working on taking the district in a new direction where technology is infused in every academic we teach. Her husband is a software developer and she came from a district (Ocean Spring, MS) where technology is King. She just could not believe where we are in that area. She wants to keep our Star status and transition into an era elearning by proposing some blended classrooms to the Board of Trustees. Roxanne: I wish her luck with that. Thank you Mrs. Howington for your time. Appendix E. Budget Training Sessions for Technology Specialists
Web 2.0 technologies and Adobe Connections using Photoshop, Macromedia, Flash, and Connect) The Web 2.0 Conference will cost $6,790 (https://en.oreilly.com/web2011/public/register) for both specialists.
Equipment Equipment being used is already available at the school. No additional equipment needed. Software Microsoft Office, Moviemaker and Macromedia, Flash, Photoshop…no additional cost Web 2.0 Technologies (free open source) Google Docs, OfficeSync, Thinkfold, RCampus, Paint.net, Colaab, media converters, pdf to Word converter, and Backboard Adobe Connect site license…$8,550 Training Resource Packet (Reliable Office Supply, http://www.reliable.com ) Binders….$420 3-D Glasses….$210 Paper….$60 Pencils and Pens….$219 Total Cost of Performance Intervention for the upcoming school year….$19,249 Appendix F: Training Schedule for 2011-2012 School Year
Training Session
Date
Time
Location
Facilitator
*Web 2.0 Technologies Part 1
Sept. 12
3:15 – 4:15
713
Sullivan
Adobe Connect
Sept. 12
3:15 – 4:15
711
Sullivan
Web 2.0 Technologies Complete
Sept. 23
3:15 – 4:15
605
Deweese
Microsoft Word and Excel
Sept. 19
3:15 – 4:15
711
Deweese
*Web 2.0 Technologies Part 2
Sept. 26
3:15 – 4:15
713
Sullivan
Adobe Flash
Sept. 19
3:15 – 4:15
605
Sullivan
Movie Maker and Power Point
Oct. 3
3:15 – 4:15
605
Deweese
Publisher (Microsoft)
Oct. 3
3:15 – 4:15
713
Sullivan
Adobe Macromedia
Oct. 3
3:15 – 4:15
711
Deweese
*Web 2.0 Technologies Part 1
Oct. 17
3:15 – 4:15
713
Sullivan
*Web 2.0 Technologies Part 2
Oct. 24
3:15 – 4:15
713
Sullivan
Movie Maker and Power Point
Nov. 7
3:15 – 4:15
711
Deweese
Adobe Flash
Nov. 14
3:15 – 4:15
711
Deweese
Photoshop
Dec. 5
3:15 – 4:15
713
Sullivan
Publisher (Microsoft)
Dec. 5
3:15 – 4:15
605
Deweese
Adobe Macromedia
Jan.23
3:15 – 4:15
605
Sullivan
Adobe Connect
Jan. 30
3:15 – 4:15
605
Deweese
Web 2.0 Technologies Complete
Feb. 13
3:15 – 4:15
711
Deweese
Microsoft Word and Excel
Feb. 20
3:15 – 4:15
713
Sullivan
Photoshop
March. 5
3:15 – 4:15
711
Sullivan
*All web based or online training will be conducted in the 713 lab on the 700 hall and will require to sessions to complete one lesson (Part 1 & 2). A facilitator will be present. Face to Face Web 2.0 (Complete) requires only one session. No training in April due to statewide test prep All May scheduling will be done through the building principal. They do not fall on this calendar. They are reserved for make-up training.
Maximizing Technology Use for Instruction and Learning
Roxanne Wright
A00129290
roxanne.wright@waldenu.edu
EDUC 8843-1 Leading and Managing Educational Technology
Dr. Timothy Powell
Walden University
May 15, 2011
Executive Summary
The Oxford School District is comprised of seven schools of which one is a high school. The Oxford High School has sixty certified educators. The school has been “High Performing” under previous rating standards by the state of Mississippi. Now, under the new rating standard, the school has achieved “Star” status, which is the highest rating possible in the state at this present time. Amid the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) era, the Oxford High School has never been identified as a school that needs improvement. We have been a pilot school for many of the state’s newly introduced programs such as “The High School Redesign Program”. However, as a “High Performing” school and a school with “Star” status we have not reached technology proficiency, when it comes to instruction, according to state mandates. We have superior academic ratings, but in an era of digital instruction, learning, and assessments, are we really preparing our students for the future? Are we embracing our vision, “First in Class, the Oxford Way”; and are we really demonstrating our mission to produce educated, responsible citizens who are capable of taking an active role in society? Society around us is digital and our local university is offering complete degrees through online, web based instruction. How ready are our students to play an active role in society with the way we are teaching them? The Oxford High School educators need consistent training on integrating technology into the curriculum. Therefore, technology training is a necessity. The solution is to provide the training in a systematic, well planned manner that is budget friendly and in a way that will meet the needs of the teachers; so we can at least reach state mandated technology proficiency standards. We should aspire to be above the minimum, but we must start somewhere and echo our vision in technology proficiency. We must be “First in Class, the Oxford Way” in technology based learning and instruction as well.
Maximizing Technology Use for Instruction and Learning
Oxford High School
Problem Summary
The Oxford High School has a wonderful group of teachers; however, we are inefficient holistically with technology and technology training opportunities in a consistent manner. We have access to Promethean boards, data projectors, digital cameras, digital camcorders, mobile labs (PCs and Macs), and even broadcast media. Every teacher does not have immediate use, but can schedule the use of the technologies. We need to have immediate access to the technology for commanded use in the curriculum. In addition to a less than efficient technology base for all teachers, there is also a problem with understanding the available technologies and how to use them effectively in the classroom. I propose that the Oxford High School educators have access to consistent training on the available technologies that we have immediate access to. This training should be on a school wide basis in order to support the instructional and assessment stratagems in the classroom effectively for an age of digital learners.
Background of Organization
The Oxford High school is located in Oxford, Mississippi, was built in 1942, and has undergone four renovations and/or additions. The school is comprised of 45% African American, 50% Caucasian, and 5% other (Japanese, Chinese, Hispanics, Indian, and Vietnamese). The school serves the public population of Oxford’s municipality district from grades 9-12. Oxford High is located in the heart of the city’s business district and is 1.5 miles from theUniversity of Mississippi (the Ivy League School of the South). The city of Oxford has the largest number of millionaires per capita in the state of Mississippi (provides a great source of funds availability for the local district in taxes). The school districts website is http://www.oxford.k12.ms.us and other information can be found on the site, including the Districts’ state report card.
Stakeholders and Decision-Makers
The stakeholders in the district are parents, community leaders and members, the Superintendent, the Board of Trustees, administrators, educators, and students. The immediate groups that will be affected by the decision are the student body, administrators, and educators of the high school. The decision makers will be the Board of Trustees, the Superintendent, and the principal. The implementer at the high school would be the building principal. They key personnel staff that will be able to provide insight for the intervention is the Instructional Technologists (Deweese and Sullivan) and the Administrative body (Martin, Howington, and Roberson).
Performance Gap: Cause Analysis
Oxford High school desires that all instructors (100%) are provided in-service training opportunities for hardware and software use for instruction and assessment purposes in the classroom. The school is missing the hardware/software use mark about 62% and strategic training is at 0.
Actual Current Performance. The teachers of the Oxford High school currently are not offered strategic and consistent training on accessible software and hardware. Effective technology use at best is at about 38% for instruction, student learning, and assessment.
Desired Performance. All teachers in the Oxford High School will be receiving technology training opportunities five times during the school year (Appendix F). Teachers will have a choice to sign up for face to face or have their training delivered asynchronously (applies only to specific sessions) with hands on opportunities and simulations that authenticate the training process.
Performance Gap. The difference between actual and desired performance is that at present we have a high school that is not utilizing the resources that are available to them to maximize instruction and student engagement using technology. The resources are there, but use is inconsistent with the display of technology resources that are visible in the classroom. The students have access to wonderful learning experiences using technology, but the teacher does not use the resource, thereby, creating a lack of opportunity to authenticate learning with technology.
Cause Analysis. The educators that I interviewed acknowledged that a problem exists with the use of technology in the classroom by teachers for instruction and assessment. Some said it has been that way since they became part of the faculty, and they did not know why or what contributed to the deficiency. The veteran educators explained their rationale in a unified manner. They said that they have not had an administrator that was tech savvy and what they have been doing has worked and continues to work to this day. They believe, as a result, technology has not been a genuine focal point for instruction. It has been included as a requirement for lesson plan production, but there are no check points to see if it is really being implemented. Also, they mentioned that the district just went to a district wide electronic grading system (Power School). They view the school as being “behind the times in pedagogy using technology”, but on target with a quality teaching faculty. The administrator stated that technology use has simply not been a priority. Test scores are good without it and Oxford is still known as a high performing school district with superior ratings across the nation. The gap exists simply because there has not been enough foresight and planning for technology uses in the district. The need has been recognized, by the purchasing of equipment (smart boards, document cameras, clicker, data projectors, mobile labs, and etc.), but a strategic method for use and implementation has not been created.
Organizational History and Background
Goals. Oxford High School has a goal that every regular education student be reading on grade level by their junior year. This can be accomplished by utilizing appropriate technology based instructional strategies Owen, Hester, & Teale, 2002). Also, Oxford High School has a goal to graduate every senior with the computing skills necessary to transition into the post secondary world with little or no remediation needed. These goals can be reached with more proficiency if more technology rich lessons are implemented in the classroom (Owen, Hester, & Teale, 2002).
History. The Oxford High is a public high school located in upscale Oxford, Mississippi. Oxford is the home of John Grishom and many other famous authors, entertainers, and sports figures. The city of Oxford is proud of the University of Mississippi and its prestigious achievements on a national level. The city is made up of a diverse citizenship with the Caucasian race having dominant representation. The school district’s ethnic demographics are indicative of its citizenship. The city is rich in educational resources, but has a great divide between the poor and upper middle class. The achievement gap at the high is representative of the same. The students are either high or very low. Closing the socioeconomic gap is just as difficult as the achievement gap in the school among low socioeconomic students and those of upper class level according to income.
Mission and Vision. The Oxford School District's mission is to produce educated, responsible citizens who are capable of taking an active role in society. The school’s vision is “First in Class, the Oxford Way”. Oxford has one of the highest graduation rates in the state of Mississippi at 91% and is reaching for 100% as each year progresses.
Three Intervention Strategies
I have proposed a low end intervention, a middle end intervention, and a high end intervention as pertaining to cost and human performance to help with the promotion and utilization of technology in the classroom for instruction and assessment. The low end intervention encourages a consistent approach to technology education and integration using hardware and software components (district tech specialists are used as trainers). The middle end intervention requires a one day workshop facilitated by district selected technology consultants that are experts in the field of educational technology. The training is specific to each educational department. Additionally, the higher end intervention requires a nine day conference and liaison with a public university. The conference is led by software developers and vendors of specialized educational equipment. The teachers are required to give up summer vacation, with pay, to attend. All interventions are good, but careful consideration must be exercised to choose the best intervention for the students, teachers, administrators, and district as a whole.
Low end intervention. During in-service days, the teachers will be given a tentative professional development schedule for the year. They will be required to attend five workshops during the first nine months of the school year. The tenth month will be reserved for make-up training sessions. There will only be ten seats per workshop. The deadline for sign-up will be the end of the last working day of August. A new finished schedule will then be redistributed by email (Appendix F). There will be five make up days at the end of the school year to be determined later. Each make-up day will address a different professional development strategy for technology integration in the secondary classroom. The two tech specialists will be conducting all training sessions. Teachers are required to attend their scheduled times under normal circumstances. The times will be from 3:15-4:15 pm each scheduled training day. CEUs will only be available for teachers that complete all sessions the first time around without using make-up days to complete (this detours extra cost). Teachers will be encouraged to sign up for trainings that can add technology enhancements to their content area lessons.
Middle end intervention. Letters will be sent to all certified employees of the Oxford High School reminding teachers of the yearly scheduled in-service days and that those days are considered regular work days for teachers. The letters will also inform them that day two will be used for a technology professional development day. The teachers will report to work on day two of in-service and be directed to their respective departments. Each department will have a technology consultant conducting the technology workshop. Teachers will be given an itinerary and dismissed for 30 minutes to login and print a one week lesson plan from the lesson plan site. Teachers will return for training and then be required to partner with another teacher and enhance the lesson using available and appropriate technologies that best engage the students and support their learning in that specific content area being taught. One teacher from each group will present original, and then the tech modifications
.
suggested by their partner. After presentation, an oral forum review will be conducted for critique and support of stratagems used. No CEUs will be offered during regular in-service days.
High end intervention. The High School has partnered with Ole Miss (University of Mississippi) in a coalition to provide a Smartboard, document camera, clickers, and data projector to every teacher in the high school. The second language teachers will also receive a mobile language lab in addition to the other technologies mentioned. The training can only be done during the summer months when campus students and faculty are not using the technology resources on a regularly scheduled basis. The district has to pay the teachers their individual regular daily rate for attending the training for seven days. Meals will also be provided because there will not be enough time allocated for lunch for teachers to leave campus. The University will be using recycled lesson plans from Master teachers around the nation that were submitted during previous Summit. After completion, the teachers will be required to take a standardized test to measure the effectiveness of the workshop as well as their ability to pair technology integration across many disciplines per lesson selected by random computer generation. After workshop is completed, all attendees (all teachers employed at the Oxford High School are required to attend) will receive 2 CEUs toward recertification and a certified hardware operator award for each technology device they have demonstrated acceptable performance mastery on during the standardized test. The district will incur a 50% cost and the University will compensate the other 50% for purchasing the technologies from vendors. The trainers will be the software developers of each company at the expense of the district. The second language teachers will have to attend two extra days under the same guidelines and test at the last half of the ninth day. They will receive the same accommodations.
Justification for Intervention Strategy
I chose the low end intervention because it incorporates accountability and provides an ongoing effort to support professional development on technology integration.
Each strategy has it strengths and limitations. I want to begin with the high end intervention first. The high end intervention is a dream come true for any district. It provides an awesome opportunity for teachers to get training from the head honchos of the hardware and software developers and receive need technological equipment for their classrooms. The teachers are provided an opportunity to receive written commendations for completing the training, they get a chance to use Master Teacher recognized lesson plans (that are related to their content area) and incorporate technology using the plans, they all get a Smartboard based on their scores from the assessment evaluation, and the district incurs only 50% of the cost. However, the project is very costly to the district as a whole. The limitations of the intervention stems from it being a one time opportunity with no follow up afterward to actually see if learned strategies are being implemented and useful to the teachers. The project also requires teacher to give up vacation time and that could stifle performance as a result of possible morale being lessened. I did not choose this intervention because of the cost of the project and its lack of continued professional support.
The middle end intervention provides content related technology support and does not interfere with the vacation time of the teachers during the summer. This intervention also uses some of the lesson plans that the individual teachers have created and allows for construct feedback that encourages modifications to support technology integration. The limitations of the strategy are built into the structure of the project. The teachers have one day to gain knowledge and modify their plans. Their colleagues are their critics (that is not always a good idea). Time is also a detriment in this case. How can you receive genuine technology support in one day for an entire school year of implementation? The gesture is good, but now realistic for the environment, and I did not choose it because of its minimal contribution to the faculty.
Now, I will address the low end strategy. This strategy provides a consistent method for technology growth and integration. The teachers have several opportunities to attend workshops and get lesson plan support using technology. They can bring their lesson plans for future lesson and actually receive live feedback on what technology to incorporate and how to mix it with the lesson using research driven best practices. The teacher receives CEUs for completing training at the end of the year (if all scheduled trainings were attended). The training is conducted by a trusted and known person in the field and the comfort zone for “lack of knowledge” is tolerable on both parts. However, it does face some limitations. The district only has two tech specialists. The lack of man power can cause a fiscal problem and performance issue (Januszewski & Molenda, 2008). The performance issues can cause a breakdown in the instructional practices by specific teachers that are relying on the training to complete phases of their plans. Also teachers may experience some difficulties with child care due to the time of day that the trainings will be taking place.
Nonetheless, the low end intervention does have more potential to solve the problem of low technology use by teachers in the classroom to support student learning. In order for technology integration to work, there must time for it and consistency throughout the school year (Christensen, 2002). This intervention supports the consistency and includes the extra time one every other month for each teacher to get the training needed to be effective technology users in the classroom.
In my interview with Mrs. Kathy Burnham-Howington, the assistant principal of Oxford High, she stated that administration recognizes the need for more technology rich lessons, but have yet to come up with a way to provide the resources to ensure that every teacher receives the training and uses it a manner consistent with best teaching practices (K. Howington, personal communication, April 6, 2011). She also said that the school has a principal that is not comfortable with technology and realizes that he needs to get more training in order to sell it his teachers (K. Howington, personal communication, April 6, 2011). The underlying problems as she sees it lack of a vision that incorporates technology to aid in the reaching of our ultimate goal, that is, to graduate 100% of our students body that can be productive citizens in society and also successful in the collegiate environment (K. Howington, personal communication, April 6, 2011).
The chosen intervention strategy (low end) will help us meet our goal of every teacher receiving technology training throughout the school year to support instruction and assessment in the classroom by requiring attendance to sessions, whether delivered asynchronously or synchronously in developing and implementing lessons that are technology rich and demonstrate best practices in instruction.
The Manager’s Many Roles
Project management techniques: As project manager, I will develop a systematic schedule for training with three additional trainings added during the month of May to be used for make-up training days. I will request that the five mandatory training days be included as in-service training and accommodated financially as a part of and not separate from the district supplement already provided to the certified teachers of Oxford High School for additional duties that are not necessarily expressly stated, but implied as a part of professional development requirements for the school year. Of the five trainings, the teachers will have options to choose face to face or online modules created by the tech specialists (see Appendix F for Schedule of Training). Also, two of them must be completed by December 1, 2011. I will also request a detailed list of equipment and software currently available to teachers at the school and meet with the tech specialists to assess their knowledge base of equipment and software presently available to the high school teachers. Based on the findings, I will schedule, if needed, training for the tech specialists during the first month of school and then develop the plan for teacher training for the school year (Appendix E). I will also put together a system check for software and a hardware check for functionality once a month to prevent delays in those areas during training (this will be done in conjunction with the tech dept.). The teachers will also be provided with a training packet that will be required for all training sessions.
Resource management techniques: The resources that will be used for this intervention are technology equipment and software. The equipment and software that will be included are as follows. We will use Smartboards, clickers, document cameras, data projectors, digital cameras, digital camcorders, ©Microsoft Office (Word, Power Point, Excel, and Publisher), Adobe Connect, Adobe Photoshop, Adobe Flash, Adobe Macromedia, Microsoft Movie Maker, and Web 2.0 technologies (Appendix E). The media specialist presently tracks the use of equipment and who is using the equipment being check out from the media center. During each training session, it will be responsibility of the tech specialist to clear all equipment usage with the media specialist. Web based training modules will also require the presence of a tech specialist.
Delivery system management techniques: The mediums for delivery of the intervention strategy will be face to face and online modules using Blackboard. The web based trainings will be done in the 713 computer lab and the face to face trainings will be done in the 605 and 711 computer labs.
Information management techniques: Teachers will be required to bring a preselected lesson plan of their choice to each training session. A copy of the lesson plan along with technology modifications will be given to Sullivan (who is also data analyst, part time) for storage and compilation at a later date. The teacher will have 10 days from the date of training to submit the lesson with technology modifications to Sullivan electronically via email (this will be done twice during the school year). After submission, Sullivan will notify the building administrators and they will setup a time with the teacher to see the lesson in action with technology modifications present. Each teacher will be assigned to an administrator (Appendix A). The administrators will use a predefined rating scale to assess the teachers’ readiness level for the technology used according to the lesson presented. Every teacher will have to present one lesson during the school year that demonstrates learned technology from the sessions. It is my plan, as project manger, that these technology rich lessons be catalogued and kept in the media center for use by all teachers for the upcoming school year after the trainings.
The Manager as Change Agent
Financial and Budget Information. The low end intervention strategy incorporated technology already available at the school and technology personnel already serving in tech specialist capacity. However, training sessions may require additional training for the specialists to prepare them to effectively use the equipment and software functionally in the time allotted for teacher training. I have identified two needed training session for the tech specialists (Appendix E). The teachers (there are 60 teachers and three administrators) will be provided with a training packet that will include a binder filled with paper (note taking) folders (for handouts), pens (writing), Web 2.0 online resources, and a pair of 3-D glasses (for use with movie making software). All three administrators will receive a training packet for their records and for future use if additional faculty is hired during the school year. See Appendix E for cost break down. All software is preloaded on the computer and the district will incur no extra cost for software, except the Adobe Connect (See Appendix E). The approximate cost of Adobe Connect for a site license is found in Appendix E. The total cost of the equipment, software, teaching supplies, and training for specialists will cost approximately $19, 249 dollars.
Project Assessment. The objectives of the project are (1) to provide technology training for every educator at Oxford High School, (2) to provide technology supports for two individual lesson plans chosen by the teacher, (3) to observe the implementation of one of the lesson plans modified through us of the technology training sessions, and (4) to make all modified technology-rich lesson plans available for teacher use by the subsequent school year. Objective one will be met by use of the technology plan scheduling instrument for school year 2011-2012. Objective two (2) will be met by the teacher submitting two original plans and the modified plans to the data analyst electronically via email, and the data analyst documenting that both sets of plans have been received (Appendix A) (original and modified plan submitted together for both lesson plans). Objective three (3) will be met by the administrators scheduling an observation for one of the technology modified lesson plans being implemented in the classroom (Appendix B). Lastly, objective four (4) will be met when the culminating project of 120 technology rich lessons, spanning all content areas at Oxford High School, has been compiled and organized by content area in a binder and ready for use by all educators the subsequent school year.
There will be a formative and summative evaluation to monitor compliance and measure the effectiveness of the training. For the formative evaluation, the administrators will use a checklist to verify that all lesson plans submissions have been completed by the teachers and submitted to the data analyst (Appendix A). The summative evaluation includes a 50 minute observation by an administrator on the lesson plan modified during the training (Appendix B). Summative evaluation starts January 4, 2012.
References
Januszewski, A., & Molenda, M. (Eds.). (2008). Educational technology: A definition with commentary. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Taylor & Frances Group
Christensen, R. (2002). Effects of technology integration education on the attitudes of teachers sand students. Retrieved from http://mytechtips.pbworks.com/f/Effects+of+Technology+Integration+Education+on+the+Attitudes+of+Teachers+and+Students+%281%29.pdf
Owens, R. F., Hester, J. L., & Teale, W. H. (2002, April). Where do you want to go today? Inquiry-based learning and technology integration. The Reading Teacher, 55(7), 616-625.
Appendix A: Formative Evaluation Instrument
Principal, Michael Martin (A-H)
Assistance Principal, Kathy Burnham-Howington (I-N)
Assistance Principal, Bradley Roberson (O-Z)
*Submission included original and modified plan using tech resources from training modules.
*Evaluation dates must range between January 4, 2012 and May 1, 2012.
(comment, please)
Demonstrates proven strategies for differentiation
Uses a variety of resources to adapt to the learning levels of students
Demonstrates that he/she is abreast latest research in instruction and informal assessment of students during instruction
(comment, please)
Demonstrates knowledge of how to use the technology in instruction
Integrates technology with instruction to maximize student learning
Provides evidence of student engagement in higher order thinking skills through the integration of technology.
Comments to Teacher
1) How is technology use among teachers, as a whole, in the classroom for instructional purposes?
2) What are you using to gauge the use among teachers?
3) How comfortable are you with technology?
4) Does the district offer regular training, and what type of training is offered, if any?
5) How many high school teachers attend?
6) Do the administrators attend mandatory job related technology training?
7) What are your thoughts on technology and student performance?
8) Why do you think technology use is so disproportionate among the high school teachers?
9) Are there any plans in the future to include technology training as a mandatory component of professional development?
Appendix D: Interview Transcripts or Summary
Person Interviewed: Kathy Burnham-Howington, Assistance Principal
1. Roxanne: How is technology use among teachers, as a whole, in the classroom for instructional purposes?
Kathy: Technology use here is not all that good among teachers. We have a great deal of veteran teachers that still list overhead projector as a technology resource on their lesson plans. I would say that maybe about 38% to 39 % are using technology, and of that number maybe about 30% are really aligning technology appropriately.
2. Roxanne: What are you using to gauge the use among teachers?
Kathy: Classroom observations and lesson plans
3. Roxanne: How comfortable are you with technology?
Kathy: I use technology often and am pretty good at Word and PowerSchool. However I do not play around with it much. That’s about it.
4. Roxanne: Does the district offer regular training, and what type of training is offered, if any?
Kathy: The district does offer some training. I am not sure at the moment what all is offered, but some is being offered.
5. Roxanne: How many high school teachers attend?
Kathy: Not many of our teachers attend. The Elementary teachers are good at attending and the Middle school teachers also.
6. Roxanne: Do the administrators attend mandatory job related technology training?
Kathy: No, we are not required to attend “tech” training for use purposes, but we did have to go to training for this new Power School system that went live district wide this school year.
7. Roxanne: What are your thoughts on technology and student performance?
Kathy: I do believe that technology peaks the level of engagement for our students. For the teachers that do use some technology resource on a daily basis, they say that the students need it. They do so much better on assessments when the lesson has been facilitated using technology that is rich in visual and hand on activities.
8. Roxanne: Why do you think technology use is so disproportionate among the high school teachers?
Kathy: A lot of our teachers are National Board Certified and have advance degrees. Their students perform well on state and national assessments. Some feel that technology will not improve student performance and they say that they are fine with the use. They do not realize that they are still under the traditional way and they are not keeping up with trends in educational research or technology. We are going to have to push them into the era of educational technology.
9. Roxanne: Are there any plans in the future to include technology training as a mandatory component of professional development?
Kathy: Our superintendent, Dr Stasny, has been working on taking the district in a new direction where technology is infused in every academic we teach. Her husband is a software developer and she came from a district (Ocean Spring, MS) where technology is King. She just could not believe where we are in that area. She wants to keep our Star status and transition into an era elearning by proposing some blended classrooms to the Board of Trustees.
Roxanne: I wish her luck with that. Thank you Mrs. Howington for your time.
Appendix E. Budget
Training Sessions for Technology Specialists
- Web 2.0 technologies and Adobe Connections using Photoshop, Macromedia, Flash, and Connect) The Web 2.0 Conference will cost $6,790 (https://en.oreilly.com/web2011/public/register) for both specialists.
- Adobe Conference (http://www.ledet.com/courses/1331-Adobe-Creative-Suite-Bootcamp--Training-Class) will cost $3,000 for both specialists.
EquipmentEquipment being used is already available at the school. No additional equipment needed.
Software
Microsoft Office, Moviemaker and Macromedia, Flash, Photoshop…no additional cost
Web 2.0 Technologies (free open source)
Google Docs, OfficeSync, Thinkfold, RCampus, Paint.net, Colaab, media converters, pdf to Word converter, and Backboard
Adobe Connect site license…$8,550
Training Resource Packet (Reliable Office Supply, http://www.reliable.com )
Binders….$420
3-D Glasses….$210
Paper….$60
Pencils and Pens….$219
Total Cost of Performance Intervention for the upcoming school year….$19,249
Appendix F: Training Schedule for 2011-2012 School Year
*All web based or online training will be conducted in the 713 lab on the 700 hall and will require to sessions to complete one lesson (Part 1 & 2). A facilitator will be present.
Face to Face Web 2.0 (Complete) requires only one session.
No training in April due to statewide test prep
All May scheduling will be done through the building principal. They do not fall on this calendar. They are reserved for make-up training.